Dea Admits That Marijuana Is Safer Than Heroin

At a meeting with reporters yesterday at the headquarters of the Drug Enforcement Administration, acting chief Chuck Rosenberg said that "heroin is clearly more dangerous than marijuana," Matt Ferner of the Huffington Post reports. This clarifies a statement he made last week, when he told reporters that marijuana was "probably not" as dangerous as heroin, adding "I'm not an expert."

Part of the classification of drugs however is stemmed by government approved federal research, which itself is banned for marijuana, making there be no legal ramifications for any medical studies.

Just look at what's at schedule one verse two and you know that the governments fucking with you. Even a conservative biggot could tell you methamphetime is worse than anything in schedule one. They'd rather you ingest battery acid than pot, or peytoe

Part of the classification of drugs however is stemmed by government approved federal research, which itself is banned for marijuana, making there be no legal ramifications for any medical studies.

Just look at what's at schedule one verse two and you know that the governments fucking with you. Even a conservative biggot could tell you methamphetime is worse than anything in schedule one. They'd rather you ingest battery acid than pot, or peytoe

Click to expand...

yes but that is not what the scheduling of drugs is based on.
It is based on the medical efficacy of a substance in junction with its' abuse/addiction potential.
methamphetamine has many medical uses, heroin only in end stage terminal cancer patients, and even then they get morphine.
marijuana will most likely be reclassified soon as the AMA and other agencies have petitioned for it's re-scheduling in light of the growing mountain of evidence for it's medical efficacy.

They are scheduled that way because dictating what you can and can't consume is technically a violation of the individuals constitutional rights. Under the auspices of the FDA and the Pure Food and Drug act of 1906 is how they arrived at the methodology of assigning medical efficacy as the determining factor because the government can control the production and distribution of medicines.

If you want to baffle someone over drug scheduling, simply ask why alcohol and tobacco are not both schedule 1 drugs as they both fulfill all requirements.

'Perhaps you misunderstood me? The research used to find the medical value of marijuana is absent. So they're truly drawing the scheduling from no basis at all. As legally there is no approved research.

all legal production of marijuana for medical research has been funded (monopolized) by the federal government.
The federal government does not retain a monopoly on the production of any other Schedule I drug, with multiple private producers having DEA licenses to manufacture MDMA, psilocybin, etc., for sale for use in federally-approved research.
In fact, the laws regulating the licensing of producers of Schedule I drugs specifically require adequate competition, the opposite of a monopoly

Click to expand...

NoxiousGas said:

If you want to baffle someone over drug scheduling, simply ask why alcohol and tobacco are not both schedule 1 drugs as they both fulfill all requirements.

'Perhaps you misunderstood me? The research used to find the medical value of marijuana is absent. So they're truly drawing the scheduling from no basis at all. As legally there is no approved research.

Quite "baffling" haven't heard that from every single stoner before.

Click to expand...

Sheesh, hate when I have to slowly explain stuff.

The reason marijuana is scheduled as it is is because the research the original scheduling was based on was from the 50's-60's and there was NO research into the medical efficacy of marijuana at the time.
If you want to understand the drug scheduling in the U.S you have to go back to the first implementation of any such controls, the pure food and drug act of 1906. That laid the groundwork and basis for the current drug schedules in existence.
All you are bitching about is the time lag between the old scheduling and new research. and NO, all research is not strictly controlled by the DEA, or not to the extent you imply, as evidenced by the enormous amount of research that has been done, is going on now and will be done that is increasingly showing marijuana to be have legitimate medical efficacy.
Secondly you seem to be hanging your hat on the danger of a substance, but that is NOT the first criteria for a scheduling, it is the medical efficacy of a substance.
That is VERY IMPORTANT to understand because it alters the entire complexion of the scheduling and laws.
you also have to consider the political climate of the times when these schedules where first developed, late 1960's. Laws about Marijuana and LSD where as much about political power as any thing else.
When a person gets busted for selling an illicit substance, in a sense they are being prosecuted for distributing medicine without a license.
Like I said, declaring a substance illegal in and of itself wouldn't fly constitutionally, that is why the drug laws are tied to the medical usage because of the pure food and drug act shortcuts those concerns because it only deals with food, cosmetics and medical drugs.

concerning being baffled, most stoners I have ever met haven't got any fucking idea of how or why the current drug laws came into being and my point being that the laws have very little to do with how dangerous a drug is, which is what most folks, yourself included it would appear, believe they are based on.

The reason marijuana is scheduled as it is is because the research the original scheduling was based on was from the 50's-60's and there was NO research into the medical efficacy of marijuana at the time.
If you want to understand the drug scheduling in the U.S you have to go back to the first implementation of any such controls, the pure food and drug act of 1906. That laid the groundwork and basis for the current drug schedules in existence.
All you are bitching about is the time lag between the old scheduling and new research. and NO, all research is not strictly controlled by the DEA, or not to the extent you imply, as evidenced by the enormous amount of research that has been done, is going on now and will be done that is increasingly showing marijuana to be have legitimate medical efficacy.
Secondly you seem to be hanging your hat on the danger of a substance, but that is NOT the first criteria for a scheduling, it is the medical efficacy of a substance.
That is VERY IMPORTANT to understand because it alters the entire complexion of the scheduling and laws.
you also have to consider the political climate of the times when these schedules where first developed, late 1960's. Laws about Marijuana and LSD where as much about political power as any thing else.
When a person gets busted for selling an illicit substance, in a sense they are being prosecuted for distributing medicine without a license.
Like I said, declaring a substance illegal in and of itself wouldn't fly constitutionally, that is why the drug laws are tied to the medical usage because of the pure food and drug act shortcuts those concerns because it only deals with food, cosmetics and medical drugs.

concerning being baffled, most stoners I have ever met haven't got any fucking idea of how or why the current drug laws came into being and my point being that the laws have very little to do with how dangerous a drug is, which is what most folks, yourself included it would appear, believe they are based on.

Click to expand...

Um haven't mentioned dangers in any way, in fact both my posts and links were about medical research.

The DEA does monopolize their marijuana licensing. And thus no research exists for any medical value positive or negative. As no one under the DEA's license is permitted to do research. Research has been done with marijuana, but not under this license, which means any and all results are irrelevent to its scheduling.

I'm only finding your arguments funny because I've just been quoting DEA documents and then being told by you that's not how it works

Just look at what's at schedule one verse two and you know that the governments fucking with you. Even a conservative biggot could tell you methamphetime is worse than anything in schedule one. They'd rather you ingest battery acid than pot, or peytoe

Click to expand...

right there is where you focused on the harm or danger a substance poses.

again the reason marijuana is schedule 1 and meth isn't is because at the time they were compiled, methamphetamine was widely used in medicine, but there was nothing but anecdotal evidence about marijuana's medical use.
Has nothing to do with potential harm.